This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

I am running for Arbitration comittee because I am a responsible contributor who reverts Vandalism, assists new editors, and Makes sure that Wikipedia is a clean, accurate Encyclopedia. I no longer state political opinons in Talk Pages.

Questions

1. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Michael Snow 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose. Mo0[ talk] 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose, lack of experience. -- Interiot 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Cryptic (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose. Crunch 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose. Antandrus (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose — Omegatron 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose. Inexperience, and statement reads more like a Request for Adminship. Batmanand 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose for lack of experience -- Angelo 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 03:29, Jan. 9, 2006

20. Oppose, experience — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose Too new. Good luck with future contributions. 172 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Bobet 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose. Too inexperienced. Paul August ☎ 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose. (finally, the last candidate)-- ragesoss 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose. Need to demonstrate a lot more knowledge about WP before taking on such a big role. novacatz 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose. Agree with novacatz. 青い(Aoi) 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose. Nothing personal; inexperience. -- Muchness 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose. android 79 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose. Inexperience issues for this vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose. -- Michalis Famelis 10:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose: Too little is known about Z.spy's ideas about the arbcom's direction, plus inexperience. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. — Nightstallion (?) 12:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose Meekohi 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Another sparkly oppose vote, per inexperience as cited by everyone else. Tom e r ^talk 14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. — Dunc| ☺ 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose.  Grue  14:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 14:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose. -- Viriditas 15:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 17:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose. Please stay a responsible editor, but that alone is not enough to be a good candidate for ArbComm.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose, xp -- kingboyk 19:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 21:32 Z
50. Oppose - needs experience. Awolf002 22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose - Inexperienced. -- EMS | Talk 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Splash ^talk 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. H e rmione 1980 23:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. older≠ wiser 03:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply